Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-08-2006, 09:12 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"


[email protected] wrote:
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 19:35:02 +0100, brother wrote:

[email protected] wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:13:25 +0100, brother wrote:

wrote:
__________________________________________________ __________
From: diderot
Subject: collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:21:44 EDT
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s,rec.food.veg
Message-ID:

This is seven year old uncorroborated hearsay

It's first hand observation from a rice farmer.


It's the intellectual equivalent of using the evidence from somebody you
met at a bar.

He says he's driven a tractor, thousands of miles. - I can believe that!

Then he says "We have organic as well as conventional farms". Ask
yourself; 'Who is he referring to when he says "we"?'For all I know he
could be referring to the population of Texas.


"the facts, data, assumptions and conclusions, while developed
on two organic rice farms (900 and 160 acres) and one 'conventional'
rice farm of 1340 acres in colorado county, texas" - diderot

If you think the "population of Texas" only has two organic rice
farms and one conventional rice farm in the whole state, you're
incredibly "naive" to say the very least, but for your sake (though
none of the readers' sake) let's hope you're being deliberately
dishonest about that stupid suggestion.

Do you REALLY think that there are more than 5 amphibians in every
square FOOT of rice?


Paste the quote. I believe he was referring to eggs, tadpoles,
and adults. There may be thousands of eggs in one square foot,
and a hundred tadpoles in another...averaging out to 5 or more in
the big picture.


It's a pretty big assumption that ethical vegetarians have an ethical
problem with destroying an egg. If he was using that assumption in his
calculations, he should have made it explicit.

It's a joke that you and other fools have fallen for.


He sells organic rice to vegans. Why would he present info like
that to vegans, if he wasn't confident that they would be too stupid
to appreciate the reality of it even if he did? Obviously he was well
aware that they are, almost certainly from his own personal experience
with them. And now from our own personal experience with them in
these ngs we can see that too. Duh.

There are animal deaths in rice production, but there is no mystical
"green waterfall".


How many deaths do you think there are, and WHY should anyone
take your estimate over that of a rice farmer???



  #17 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-08-2006, 10:15 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 692
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 11:02:46 +0100, "pearl" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:13:25 +0100, brother wrote:

wrote:
__________________________________________________ __________
From: diderot
Subject: collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:21:44 EDT
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s,rec.food.veg
Message-ID:


This is seven year old uncorroborated hearsay

It's first hand observation from a rice farmer.


"There is an "article" circulating on the Internet that describes how
thousands of frogs and other animals are killed in the mechanized
harvesting of grain crops. This "collateral animal deaths" story is an
elaborate hoax. The author, a "Texas organic rice farmer" is a gifted
writer, but he should use his talents elsewhere.

The author's numbers describe a plague of frogs of biblical
proportions. However, it is questionable if he has even been on a rice
farm. The major point that our author has missed is that rice fields
are harvested dry. The irrigation water is drained, and the ground is
left to dry before the harvesters go out in the field (otherwise, they'd
sink in the mud). There just aren't that many amphibians in the field.


Those who can't survive the dried environment would already
be dead,


Why would any amphibians that might be in the fields stick around
as the fields dry, and not go with or follow the water when drained?

yes, but diderot led me to believe that most of them were
tree frogs who could survive in the stalks until the harverster came
along.


Where did all these frogs come from, after supposedly being
slaughtered year in, year out?

If diderot exagerated, it was to make people aware of the
deaths caused by rice production.


diderot told wholesale porkies in order to try to blur the line
between deaths in crop production and in the livestock industry.

There's no doubt that your
source--and especially YOU yourself--are trying to create the false
impression that thousands of animals are not being killed when
they really are. "ara" dishonesty is undoubtedly the more disgusting
and contemptible, inconsiderate and selfish...diderot encourages
people to consider human influence on animals involved in rice
production, while YOU encourage people NOT TO!


WHY should anyone take his 'estimate' over that of a rice farmer?

There's no doubt that your source--and especially YOU yourself--
are trying to create the false impression that thousands of animals
are being killed when they really aren't. Your anti AR dishonesty is
undoubtedly disgusting and contemptible, inconsiderate and selfish.





  #18 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-08-2006, 10:18 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 692
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

"chico chupacabra" lied in message ...

[..]

Got a valid explanation for how the WTC collapsed yet, traitor chico?

'The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than
a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield
strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still
support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650C fire.'
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html


'What's The Truth?: How Indeed Did The Twin Towers Collapse?
A Dem Bruce Lee Styles Film
1 hr 26 min 30 sec - Jul 1, 2006
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...191665&q=truth






  #19 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-08-2006, 10:21 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 692
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

[email protected] wrote in message ...
On 29 Aug 2006 06:11:43 -0700, "Florida" wrote:

Hey, Kent Lundberg, how are you? We buy your rice. Organic is
good. Interesting that there are no collateral included deaths in
commercial rice production.


It's a lie. Obviously pearl wants to promote the lie,


You're the one who obviously wants to promote the lie, liar.


  #20 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-08-2006, 05:26 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

On 30 Aug 2006 01:12:03 -0700, "Rupert" wrote:


[email protected] wrote:
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 19:35:02 +0100, brother wrote:

[email protected] wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:13:25 +0100, brother wrote:

wrote:
__________________________________________________ __________
From: diderot
Subject: collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:21:44 EDT
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s,rec.food.veg
Message-ID:

This is seven year old uncorroborated hearsay

It's first hand observation from a rice farmer.

It's the intellectual equivalent of using the evidence from somebody you
met at a bar.

He says he's driven a tractor, thousands of miles. - I can believe that!

Then he says "We have organic as well as conventional farms". Ask
yourself; 'Who is he referring to when he says "we"?'For all I know he
could be referring to the population of Texas.


"the facts, data, assumptions and conclusions, while developed
on two organic rice farms (900 and 160 acres) and one 'conventional'
rice farm of 1340 acres in colorado county, texas" - diderot

If you think the "population of Texas" only has two organic rice
farms and one conventional rice farm in the whole state, you're
incredibly "naive" to say the very least, but for your sake (though
none of the readers' sake) let's hope you're being deliberately
dishonest about that stupid suggestion.

Do you REALLY think that there are more than 5 amphibians in every
square FOOT of rice?


Paste the quote. I believe he was referring to eggs, tadpoles,
and adults. There may be thousands of eggs in one square foot,
and a hundred tadpoles in another...averaging out to 5 or more in
the big picture.


It's a pretty big assumption that ethical vegetarians have an ethical
problem with destroying an egg.


LOL! As we can see by the replys, supposedly "ethical" vegetarians
not only don't have an ethical problem with destroying eggs, tadpoles,
frogs, snakes, lizards, and whatever else gets killed in rice production,
but they are OPPOSED to anyone even pointing out that they are!




  #21 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-08-2006, 05:30 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 10:15:56 +0100, "pearl" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 11:02:46 +0100, "pearl" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:13:25 +0100, brother wrote:

wrote:
__________________________________________________ __________
From: diderot
Subject: collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:21:44 EDT
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s,rec.food.veg
Message-ID:


This is seven year old uncorroborated hearsay

It's first hand observation from a rice farmer.

"There is an "article" circulating on the Internet that describes how
thousands of frogs and other animals are killed in the mechanized
harvesting of grain crops. This "collateral animal deaths" story is an
elaborate hoax. The author, a "Texas organic rice farmer" is a gifted
writer, but he should use his talents elsewhere.

The author's numbers describe a plague of frogs of biblical
proportions. However, it is questionable if he has even been on a rice
farm. The major point that our author has missed is that rice fields
are harvested dry. The irrigation water is drained, and the ground is
left to dry before the harvesters go out in the field (otherwise, they'd
sink in the mud). There just aren't that many amphibians in the field.


Those who can't survive the dried environment would already
be dead,


Why would any amphibians that might be in the fields stick around
as the fields dry, and not go with or follow the water when drained?


I feel confident the main reason is also a reason why humans
get caught in floods: Because they don't know what's happening.
Also frogs who are on land and tree frogs who are on rice stalks
when the water goes out, obviously can't go with it. Even you
should have been able to figure that one out. Then there are
the creatures who are in deep parts of the water when the
draining occurs, so they are trapped in puddles and pools
afterward. And there're no doubt some who move along with the
water when it begins to recede even though they have no clue
what's going on, but get stopped by rocks, sticks, rice stalks,
mounds of mud etc so they don't go all the way with it. Those
are SOME of the reasons, and undoubtedly there are more.

yes, but diderot led me to believe that most of them were
tree frogs who could survive in the stalks until the harverster came
along.


Where did all these frogs come from, after supposedly being
slaughtered year in, year out?


diderot was nice enough to exchange some emails with me,
and that was a question I asked him about. He said the water
they use to flood the fields comes from rivers and/or creeks
which have frogs etc living in them already. So they come from
upstream.

If diderot exagerated, it was to make people aware of the
deaths caused by rice production.


diderot told wholesale porkies in order to try to blur the line
between deaths in crop production and in the livestock industry.


diderot told people about cds that you "aras" obviously
could not care less about, and in fact do NOT want people
to be aware of. Disgusting!!!
  #22 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-08-2006, 05:31 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 10:21:49 +0100, "pearl" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message ...
On 29 Aug 2006 06:11:43 -0700, "Florida" wrote:

Hey, Kent Lundberg, how are you? We buy your rice. Organic is
good. Interesting that there are no collateral included deaths in
commercial rice production.


It's a lie. Obviously pearl wants to promote the lie,


You're the one who obviously wants to promote the lie, liar.


As I said, OBVIOUSLY you want to promote the lie. Anyone
who thinks there are no cds in rice production would have to
be even stupider than you, meaning that you know there are,
meaning that you're the deliberate liar. Duh.
  #23 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-08-2006, 12:09 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"


[email protected] wrote:
On 30 Aug 2006 01:12:03 -0700, "Rupert" wrote:


[email protected] wrote:
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 19:35:02 +0100, brother wrote:

[email protected] wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:13:25 +0100, brother wrote:

wrote:
__________________________________________________ __________
From: diderot
Subject: collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:21:44 EDT
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s,rec.food.veg
Message-ID:

This is seven year old uncorroborated hearsay

It's first hand observation from a rice farmer.

It's the intellectual equivalent of using the evidence from somebody you
met at a bar.

He says he's driven a tractor, thousands of miles. - I can believe that!

Then he says "We have organic as well as conventional farms". Ask
yourself; 'Who is he referring to when he says "we"?'For all I know he
could be referring to the population of Texas.

"the facts, data, assumptions and conclusions, while developed
on two organic rice farms (900 and 160 acres) and one 'conventional'
rice farm of 1340 acres in colorado county, texas" - diderot

If you think the "population of Texas" only has two organic rice
farms and one conventional rice farm in the whole state, you're
incredibly "naive" to say the very least, but for your sake (though
none of the readers' sake) let's hope you're being deliberately
dishonest about that stupid suggestion.

Do you REALLY think that there are more than 5 amphibians in every
square FOOT of rice?

Paste the quote. I believe he was referring to eggs, tadpoles,
and adults. There may be thousands of eggs in one square foot,
and a hundred tadpoles in another...averaging out to 5 or more in
the big picture.


It's a pretty big assumption that ethical vegetarians have an ethical
problem with destroying an egg.


LOL! As we can see by the replys, supposedly "ethical" vegetarians
not only don't have an ethical problem with destroying eggs, tadpoles,
frogs, snakes, lizards, and whatever else gets killed in rice production,
but they are OPPOSED to anyone even pointing out that they are!


This is an evasion of the point.

Ethical vegetarians usually do think there is some sort of presumption
against killing sentient animals. You have no reason to think anyone
here is opposed to people pointing out that sentient animals are killed
in the course of rice production. Some people here think that Diderot's
account of the matter distorts the truth to some extent and are
responding accordingly.

I was simply pointing out that eggs are not and never have been
sentient. If it significantly affects the calculation to take eggs into
account, he should make explicit that he's doing so, which he didn't.
If you think that the "5 amphibians per square foot" figure can only be
justified by counting eggs, then you're basically admitting that the
figures are being inflated in a misleading way.

  #24 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-08-2006, 10:50 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 692
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 10:21:49 +0100, "pearl" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message ...
On 29 Aug 2006 06:11:43 -0700, "Florida" wrote:

Hey, Kent Lundberg, how are you? We buy your rice. Organic is
good. Interesting that there are no collateral included deaths in
commercial rice production.

It's a lie. Obviously pearl wants to promote the lie,


You're the one who obviously wants to promote the lie, liar.


As I said, OBVIOUSLY you want to promote the lie. Anyone
who thinks there are no cds in rice production would have to
be even stupider than you, meaning that you know there are,
meaning that you're the deliberate liar. Duh.


I have not said that there are "no cds in rice production", as you imply.

"Regrettably, there probably are some small animal deaths. However,
the number of deaths in a mile of rice harvesting pales in comparison to
the road kill on a mile of highway. Harvesters move slowly, and they are
not the high speed machines described in this article." - Kent Lundberg

That is from someone *known* to be a GENUINE organic rice farmer.

As I said, you are a liar, and you OBVIOUSLY want to promote the lie.




  #25 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-08-2006, 11:36 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 692
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 10:15:56 +0100, "pearl" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 11:02:46 +0100, "pearl" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:13:25 +0100, brother wrote:

wrote:
__________________________________________________ __________
From: diderot
Subject: collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:21:44 EDT
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s,rec.food.veg
Message-ID:


This is seven year old uncorroborated hearsay

It's first hand observation from a rice farmer.

"There is an "article" circulating on the Internet that describes how
thousands of frogs and other animals are killed in the mechanized
harvesting of grain crops. This "collateral animal deaths" story is an
elaborate hoax. The author, a "Texas organic rice farmer" is a gifted
writer, but he should use his talents elsewhere.

The author's numbers describe a plague of frogs of biblical
proportions. However, it is questionable if he has even been on a rice
farm. The major point that our author has missed is that rice fields
are harvested dry. The irrigation water is drained, and the ground is
left to dry before the harvesters go out in the field (otherwise, they'd
sink in the mud). There just aren't that many amphibians in the field.

Those who can't survive the dried environment would already
be dead,


Why would any amphibians that might be in the fields stick around
as the fields dry, and not go with or follow the water when drained?


I feel confident the main reason is also a reason why humans
get caught in floods: Because they don't know what's happening.
Also frogs who are on land and tree frogs who are on rice stalks
when the water goes out, obviously can't go with it. Even you
should have been able to figure that one out. Then there are
the creatures who are in deep parts of the water when the
draining occurs, so they are trapped in puddles and pools
afterward. And there're no doubt some who move along with the
water when it begins to recede even though they have no clue
what's going on, but get stopped by rocks, sticks, rice stalks,
mounds of mud etc so they don't go all the way with it. Those
are SOME of the reasons, and undoubtedly there are more.


That is all really absolute nonsense. Frogs are as mobile as the
next creature. Any there could easily move on as the fields dry.

yes, but diderot led me to believe that most of them were
tree frogs who could survive in the stalks until the harverster came
along.


Where did all these frogs come from, after supposedly being
slaughtered year in, year out?


diderot was nice enough to exchange some emails with me,


I bet! - you're a ready sucker, and an unabashed propagandist.

and that was a question I asked him about. He said the water
they use to flood the fields comes from rivers and/or creeks
which have frogs etc living in them already. So they come from
upstream.


Why would they move from their established habitat? Some frogs
live near rivers or creeks, but they don't actually live -in- the water
of moving rivers and creeks, nor do they spawn in moving water.
Why don't you do a little research? And if his claims were true, a
seasonal wholesale slaughter of frogs would be well-documented.

If diderot exagerated, it was to make people aware of the
deaths caused by rice production.


diderot told wholesale porkies in order to try to blur the line
between deaths in crop production and in the livestock industry.


diderot told people about cds that you "aras" obviously
could not care less about, and in fact do NOT want people
to be aware of. Disgusting!!!


diderot told people lies about cds. And you swallowed it whole.






  #26 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-08-2006, 06:29 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 9
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

Rupert wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
On 30 Aug 2006 01:12:03 -0700, "Rupert" wrote:

[email protected] wrote:
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 19:35:02 +0100, brother wrote:

[email protected] wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:13:25 +0100, brother wrote:

wrote:
__________________________________________________ __________
From: diderot
Subject: collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:21:44 EDT
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s,rec.food.veg
Message-ID:

This is seven year old uncorroborated hearsay
It's first hand observation from a rice farmer.
It's the intellectual equivalent of using the evidence from somebody you
met at a bar.

He says he's driven a tractor, thousands of miles. - I can believe that!

Then he says "We have organic as well as conventional farms". Ask
yourself; 'Who is he referring to when he says "we"?'For all I know he
could be referring to the population of Texas.
"the facts, data, assumptions and conclusions, while developed
on two organic rice farms (900 and 160 acres) and one 'conventional'
rice farm of 1340 acres in colorado county, texas" - diderot

If you think the "population of Texas" only has two organic rice
farms and one conventional rice farm in the whole state, you're
incredibly "naive" to say the very least, but for your sake (though
none of the readers' sake) let's hope you're being deliberately
dishonest about that stupid suggestion.

Do you REALLY think that there are more than 5 amphibians in every
square FOOT of rice?
Paste the quote. I believe he was referring to eggs, tadpoles,
and adults. There may be thousands of eggs in one square foot,
and a hundred tadpoles in another...averaging out to 5 or more in
the big picture.

It's a pretty big assumption that ethical vegetarians have an ethical
problem with destroying an egg.

LOL! As we can see by the replys, supposedly "ethical" vegetarians
not only don't have an ethical problem with destroying eggs, tadpoles,
frogs, snakes, lizards, and whatever else gets killed in rice production,
but they are OPPOSED to anyone even pointing out that they are!


This is an evasion of the point.

Ethical vegetarians usually do think there is some sort of presumption
against killing sentient animals. You have no reason to think anyone
here is opposed to people pointing out that sentient animals are killed
in the course of rice production. Some people here think that Diderot's
account of the matter distorts the truth to some extent and are
responding accordingly.

I was simply pointing out that eggs are not and never have been
sentient. If it significantly affects the calculation to take eggs into
account, he should make explicit that he's doing so, which he didn't.
If you think that the "5 amphibians per square foot" figure can only be
justified by counting eggs, then you're basically admitting that the
figures are being inflated in a misleading way.


Hi,

The "5 amphibians per square foot" figure came from Bob Sikes, based on
his earlier posting of his FAQ:

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt...cef828 0ba2a3

http://tinyurl.com/gd2by


He stated:


"most times, judging from the visible continuious population swimming
across the header, it is somewhere between 30K & 50+K per acre
harvested. a good, reasonable, annualised (but still incredibly
conservative) number of amphibian and anole (and slow, small furry
things) deaths through the combine is 35,000 of all species harvested
per acre, combined average for *two* cuttings. in spite of these
seemingly large numbers, far, far more frogs & lizards escape than are
combined. i would guess that the 35,000 amphibian deaths represents
less than *10-15% of the total population*, and probably considerably
less, but that is just a guess - plenty, plenty, plenty are not killed
.... until that night and the next day, when they disappear almost
totally into the gullets of predators. "

He also states that "an acre has 43,264+ square feet"

So total population = 100%/15% x 35 000 = 233 333

Amphibians per square foot = 233 333 / 43 264 = 5.4. (Over a quarter of
a million frogs on a American football pitch!)

However, I noticed that he's changed his lie to 20% in this latest
revision of his "****ing Awful Quotations (FAQ)", this would give a
total AMPHIBIAN population of 4 per *every* square foot. This is over 4
times higher than the maximum you may expect at a *breeding* site!

It's a lie, and the real telling thing, is that the anti brigade cling
to it, as if it were their life line.


  #27 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-08-2006, 07:00 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

[email protected] wrote:

, anyone who knows anything at all about
animals can easily understand how the machinery,
spraying and complete changes of environment kill them.


Anyone who knows anything at all about farming knows that these deaths
can be greatly reduced by following simple ecologically sensitive
farming practices. Undisturbed field margins, for instance, give
animals a safe haven when machinery is in the field. Sprial cutting,
inside to outside, patterns during harvest leave animals an avenue of
escape. No-till or low-till crops spare non-mobile young.
Biological control of insect larva and species specific use of IPM
don't impact the reproductive capability of field animals. High
residue combining, manner of irrigation and control of run-off are
other sound practices and I'm sure there are some I've left out.

Not only do these enlightened farming practices save animals, not
something most farmers are concerned about, they slow desertification
of agricultural lands. That's something farmers care about or should
care about very much.

If any person can't, that necessarily means they have no
understanding at all about how the processes influence
animals, probably because they're afraid to think about
it for some personal reason(s). It undoubtedly shows that
they have no understanding or interest in how humans
influence animals during rice production.


It's simple. Only grow rice on natural floodplains where wildlife have
evolved survival strategies to cope with the cycle of flooding and
draining. If you can't grow rice without creating ecological mayhem,
grow something else.

  #28 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-08-2006, 07:18 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"


[email protected] wrote:
(snip)

There may be thousands of eggs in one square foot,


Are you worried about a "decent life" for these unborn, future animals?
The merger is now complete. Ball is Harrison and Harrison is Ball.

  #29 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-09-2006, 12:14 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

On 30 Aug 2006 16:09:53 -0700, "Rupert" wrote:


[email protected] wrote:
On 30 Aug 2006 01:12:03 -0700, "Rupert" wrote:


[email protected] wrote:
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 19:35:02 +0100, brother wrote:

[email protected] wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:13:25 +0100, brother wrote:

wrote:
__________________________________________________ __________
From: diderot
Subject: collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:21:44 EDT
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s,rec.food.veg
Message-ID:

This is seven year old uncorroborated hearsay

It's first hand observation from a rice farmer.

It's the intellectual equivalent of using the evidence from somebody you
met at a bar.

He says he's driven a tractor, thousands of miles. - I can believe that!

Then he says "We have organic as well as conventional farms". Ask
yourself; 'Who is he referring to when he says "we"?'For all I know he
could be referring to the population of Texas.

"the facts, data, assumptions and conclusions, while developed
on two organic rice farms (900 and 160 acres) and one 'conventional'
rice farm of 1340 acres in colorado county, texas" - diderot

If you think the "population of Texas" only has two organic rice
farms and one conventional rice farm in the whole state, you're
incredibly "naive" to say the very least, but for your sake (though
none of the readers' sake) let's hope you're being deliberately
dishonest about that stupid suggestion.

Do you REALLY think that there are more than 5 amphibians in every
square FOOT of rice?

Paste the quote. I believe he was referring to eggs, tadpoles,
and adults. There may be thousands of eggs in one square foot,
and a hundred tadpoles in another...averaging out to 5 or more in
the big picture.


It's a pretty big assumption that ethical vegetarians have an ethical
problem with destroying an egg.


LOL! As we can see by the replys, supposedly "ethical" vegetarians
not only don't have an ethical problem with destroying eggs, tadpoles,
frogs, snakes, lizards, and whatever else gets killed in rice production,
but they are OPPOSED to anyone even pointing out that they are!


This is an evasion of the point.


That IS my point!

Ethical vegetarians usually do think there is some sort of presumption
against killing sentient animals. You have no reason to think anyone
here is opposed to people pointing out that sentient animals are killed
in the course of rice production.


So far I have reason to believe that veg*ns are opposed to seeing
it pointed out. Damn good reason in fact.

Some people here think that Diderot's
account of the matter distorts the truth to some extent and are
responding accordingly.

I was simply pointing out that eggs are not and never have been
sentient. If it significantly affects the calculation to take eggs into
account, he should make explicit that he's doing so, which he didn't.


Then maybe he was only referring to sentient animals and not
eggs too.

If you think that the "5 amphibians per square foot" figure can only be
justified by counting eggs, then you're basically admitting that the
figures are being inflated in a misleading way.


How many are killed then? How do you know?
  #30 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-09-2006, 12:17 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 10:50:33 +0100, "pearl" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 10:21:49 +0100, "pearl" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message ...
On 29 Aug 2006 06:11:43 -0700, "Florida" wrote:

Hey, Kent Lundberg, how are you? We buy your rice. Organic is
good. Interesting that there are no collateral included deaths in
commercial rice production.

It's a lie. Obviously pearl wants to promote the lie,

You're the one who obviously wants to promote the lie, liar.


As I said, OBVIOUSLY you want to promote the lie. Anyone
who thinks there are no cds in rice production would have to
be even stupider than you, meaning that you know there are,
meaning that you're the deliberate liar. Duh.


I have not said that there are "no cds in rice production", as you imply.

"Regrettably, there probably are some small animal deaths. However,
the number of deaths in a mile of rice harvesting pales in comparison to
the road kill on a mile of highway.


That's an obvious lie, and anyone who's aware that animals don't
live on asphalt should be able to understand why.

Harvesters move slowly,


So did the bush hog I got to run a few times. But there were a lot
of grass hoppers bouncing around on it and getting killed by it the
whole time anyway. If they had been frogs and anoles etc like in
rice fields it would have been them in that position instead, but
rice harvesters would provide less chance of survival because of
the difference in design. I'm sure you won't be able to see why
or how, but I believe most omnivorous people could:

http://tinyurl.com/goeyk

http://tinyurl.com/gkpmo
http://tinyurl.com/pk3ut

and they are
not the high speed machines described in this article." - Kent Lundberg


He told you what he knows very well that you want to believe,
because he wants you to keep buying rice. diderot told you "aras"
about cds because he knows from experience your selfishness will
cause you to deny them to yourself and everyone else and you'll
keep buying rice and encouraging everyone else to. In fact now
that we're (meaning me :-) thinking about it after observing your
reaction, he may have learned that you "aras" will buy MORE rice
after denying the deaths involved with it...

That is from someone *known* to be a GENUINE organic rice farmer.

As I said, you are a liar, and you OBVIOUSLY want to promote the lie.


"Florida" wrote:

"Interesting that there are no collateral included deaths in
commercial rice production."

YOU, who bitch and carry on claiming diderot was wrong, said
nothing at all to correct that absurd, dishonest idea. That means
YOU want people to believe it.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate Fred C. Dobbs[_2_] Vegan 47 24-05-2010 03:22 PM
"dead-frog numbers [was: faq collateral included deaths in organic rice production]" [email protected] Vegan 4 14-09-2006 05:31 PM
rice deaths vs. road kill, attn. "pearl" [email protected] Vegan 3 07-09-2006 05:44 PM
The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma. Derek Vegan 196 05-01-2006 02:45 AM
Rick Etter's denial of the collateral deaths accrued during the production of grass fed beef Ipse dixit Vegan 6 15-11-2003 12:20 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:06 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017